We don't live in an Orwellian world, we live in a Mills world. A 19th century British philosopher predicted the totalitarianism of social networking - Mental and moral powers, like our muscles, are only improved by regular use - Anything that destroys uniqueness is despotism, whatever name it takes on - Smothering millions in the semi-demented repetition of hollowed-out slogans - We end up in crystal clear air, but as unfree monkeys. And nobody here wants that.
***
"The university is not a club. It's not a political lobby. It's not a religious seminary. It exists to seek and tell the truth, whatever it takes, and whoever it may piss off. Without the freedom to explore controversial or 'offensive' ideas, universities are nothing... Freedom of speech for only one side is no freedom of speech at all."
Groupthink by Mill
Against the tyranny of society - elsewhere he calls it the tyranny of the majority - Mill contrasts the originality of the individual, which he sees as an outgrowth of a sense of freedom. If every person feels free, the whole society will be free. And a free society necessarily produces higher results than an unfree one that does not allow its most promising individuals to excel. Mill is not denying the influence of his mentor Jeremy Bentham, who argued that only those actions that lead the greatest number of individuals to the greatest happiness are moral.
Mill's ethics, however, is much deeper and descends to the psychological level of each individual. For him, the ability to "make choices" is most important for the moral development of each of us. His biggest problem with the mob mentality - Orwell would probably use Irving Janis's term groupthink today - is that it suppresses this very skill in people, making them de facto monkeys imitating each other. To use a gendered label on Instagram just because it is now being done would probably be condemned by Mill primarily on the basis that it has not grown out of the mental development of the individual in question, but has been imprinted on them by the crowd who "think for them".
The result, in fact, is an immature society drowning in mediocrity and producing individuals who have not been led to think for themselves, but only to imitate one another. "Mental and moral powers, like our muscles, are perfected only by regular use," Mill writes. We could take his reasoning to its corollary and point to today's much talked about crisis of elites - isn't ideological groupthink, compounded by social media, the reason for the lack of strong political personalities? But more on that some other time.
According to Mill, therefore, to automatically adopt someone else's views is not only harmful to the development of the individual, it is ultimately amoral. It robs society of the best it is capable of producing, namely autonomous thinking individuals who have been shaped by their own freedom and originality. Whatever gets in the way of these, according to the British thinker, is not only a nuisance but a sign of tyranny. "Whatever demolishes uniqueness is despotism, whatever name it takes on," Mill concludes.
A bet on originality
But lest we merely glorify Mill, let us offer a fairly obvious critique. Reading about his strong individuality, which gurgles like Niagara instead of being harnessed like a Dutch canal, one cannot help comparing him to Nietzsche and his Superman, who broke free from the bourgeois morality of his contemporaries. Mill certainly thinks differently and still places the old Benthamite emphasis on the contribution to society as a whole, but the parallels are striking nonetheless. Nietzsche, too, saw the Overman as the result of moral reasoning and the general crisis of Christian ethics he perceived around him. The dangers of his trembling about the all-overcoming Will are then too well known from history to be treated here.
Mill, knowing neither Niezsche nor Hitler, was obviously aware of this. Throughout his work permeates the effort to establish the limits that individual freedom can have in relation to the rest of society. His ethics constantly balances between the development of the individual and the control that society can exert over him - but it would be fair to write that he never succeeded in clearly defining this balance, and it is obvious, especially after reading the passages quoted, that the individual wins it outright.
But perhaps that is a necessary risk that any true liberal must take. Rather than suffocate millions in the semi-demented repetition of hollowed-out slogans - yes, this is where Mill's world approaches Orwell's - it is better to take the risk that some blow will occasionally fall short.
The alternative is too unthinkable and far more amoral
For it leads inevitably to the belief that nothing like individual development makes sense, and that true wisdom is born in the minds of the crowd, whereupon it is reproduced by a proxy to combat misinformation.
To accept this game would be to deny the roots of Western civilisation - and if it means anything to us, we should work quickly to nurture it. Fighting climate change may be a noble cause, but compared to the fight for freedom of speech - and, more significantly, freedom of thought - it seems like an entirely secondary pastime. Even if it leads to its goal, which seems unlikely given the overall level of CO2 in the atmosphere, we will end up with crystal clear air, but as unfree monkeys. And nobody here wants that.
Štěpán Hobza: Big Brother has begun to protect us. Full article (LN, Orientation 8.7.2023)
***
The biggest corruption scandal in EU history - Does the EU protect citizens from Pegasus spyware?
Read more...